Your View: Obama failed to earn our endorsement

It certainly came as no surprise that The Standard-Times endorsed President Obama's candidacy for reelection (Nov. 4, "Obama has earned four more years").

Comment

By ROBERT E. COMEAU

southcoasttoday.com

By ROBERT E. COMEAU

Posted Nov. 13, 2012 at 12:01 AM

By ROBERT E. COMEAU
Posted Nov. 13, 2012 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

It certainly came as no surprise that The Standard-Times endorsed President Obama's candidacy for reelection (Nov. 4, "Obama has earned four more years").

It would, in fact, have been a jolt of seismic proportions if you hadn't. It is not the endorsement itself, that I or anyone else should take issue with. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. It is the premise on which the endorsement was based that I found troubling. It is not playing word games to take issue with the headline, most specifically the use of the word "earned."

When one earns re-election, not unlike earning the renewal of a contract, or the rehiring of a contractor for example, it is usually with the understanding that the person in question has performed at least up to expectations, if not in excess of them, in the first go-around. That principle didn't apply in this case, but perhaps the expectations regarding this president were much too high when you consider all the promises and hoopla in 2008.

Well, "Hope and Change" have evaporated. The "hope" has morphed into "hopeless." The "change" necessary, but which did not occur, would have required bipartisanship at a significant level. That would further require both extraordinary courage and skilled leadership from any president. Sadly, Barack Obama did not display those qualities in his first term. We can only hope that he will display some courage and leadership in his second. To be fair, those qualities were also nowhere to be found with congressional leaders from both parties. They need to step up to the plate as well. But, in the final analysis, the president is in charge; the "buck stops" with him.

There were a host of specific points, in the editorial that could be disputed - but to do so in this piece would take up far too much space. I will focus briefly on just two. The endorsement had a shaded sub-text headline that read: "A second term for Obama is better for the next generation of Americans". Someone needs to explain to me how the accumulation of massive, not sustainable debt is somehow "better" for our children and grandchildren! Secondly, the phrase "a woman's decisions about her health" was characterized as a significant issue in the campaign. Someone needs to explain to me how denying free birth control because of religious or moral convictions or any other reason constitutes a "war on women" while at the same time the taking of innocent lives in the womb, half of them female, does not constitute a war on anyone. It boggles the mind!